Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 481 | control, N = 241 | treatment, N = 241 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 48 | 51.05 ± 12.71 (25 - 74) | 50.67 ± 13.25 (25 - 74) | 51.44 ± 12.43 (32 - 72) | 0.837 |
gender | 48 | 0.365 | |||
f | 31 (65%) | 14 (58%) | 17 (71%) | ||
m | 17 (35%) | 10 (42%) | 7 (29%) | ||
occupation | 48 | 0.971 | |||
day_training | 1 (2.1%) | 1 (4.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 5 (10%) | 3 (12%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
homemaker | 4 (8.3%) | 2 (8.3%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
other | 2 (4.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
part_time | 9 (19%) | 5 (21%) | 4 (17%) | ||
retired | 13 (27%) | 6 (25%) | 7 (29%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | ||
unemploy | 10 (21%) | 5 (21%) | 5 (21%) | ||
marital | 48 | 0.891 | |||
divore | 5 (10%) | 3 (12%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
married | 10 (21%) | 4 (17%) | 6 (25%) | ||
none | 27 (56%) | 14 (58%) | 13 (54%) | ||
seperation | 3 (6.2%) | 2 (8.3%) | 1 (4.2%) | ||
widow | 3 (6.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
edu | 48 | 0.846 | |||
bachelor | 14 (29%) | 6 (25%) | 8 (33%) | ||
diploma | 7 (15%) | 5 (21%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
hd_ad | 2 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | ||
postgraduate | 4 (8.3%) | 2 (8.3%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
primary | 4 (8.3%) | 1 (4.2%) | 3 (12%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 4 (8.3%) | 2 (8.3%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 12 (25%) | 7 (29%) | 5 (21%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (2.1%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.2%) | ||
fam_income | 48 | 0.724 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (6.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
12001_14000 | 2 (4.2%) | 2 (8.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (10%) | 2 (8.3%) | 3 (12%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | ||
18001_20000 | 2 (4.2%) | 2 (8.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 9 (19%) | 6 (25%) | 3 (12%) | ||
2001_4000 | 5 (10%) | 2 (8.3%) | 3 (12%) | ||
4001_6000 | 7 (15%) | 3 (12%) | 4 (17%) | ||
6001_8000 | 5 (10%) | 3 (12%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
8001_10000 | 4 (8.3%) | 1 (4.2%) | 3 (12%) | ||
below_2000 | 4 (8.3%) | 1 (4.2%) | 3 (12%) | ||
medication | 48 | 40 (83%) | 20 (83%) | 20 (83%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 48 | 15.71 ± 12.41 (0 - 56) | 17.12 ± 14.01 (1 - 56) | 14.29 ± 10.70 (0 - 35) | 0.437 |
onset_age | 48 | 35.35 ± 12.60 (15 - 62) | 33.55 ± 11.34 (16 - 55) | 37.14 ± 13.76 (15 - 62) | 0.329 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 481 | control, N = 241 | treatment, N = 241 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 48 | 3.33 ± 1.28 (1 - 5) | 3.25 ± 1.36 (1 - 5) | 3.42 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 0.656 |
recovery_stage_b | 48 | 18.25 ± 2.69 (9 - 23) | 18.33 ± 2.90 (9 - 23) | 18.17 ± 2.53 (14 - 23) | 0.833 |
ras_confidence | 48 | 30.69 ± 4.60 (19 - 40) | 30.25 ± 4.42 (19 - 40) | 31.12 ± 4.84 (22 - 39) | 0.516 |
ras_willingness | 48 | 12.29 ± 1.97 (7 - 15) | 12.33 ± 1.74 (9 - 15) | 12.25 ± 2.21 (7 - 15) | 0.885 |
ras_goal | 48 | 17.67 ± 2.92 (12 - 24) | 17.58 ± 2.90 (12 - 23) | 17.75 ± 3.00 (12 - 24) | 0.846 |
ras_reliance | 48 | 13.48 ± 3.01 (8 - 20) | 13.38 ± 2.72 (8 - 18) | 13.58 ± 3.34 (8 - 20) | 0.813 |
ras_domination | 48 | 10.17 ± 2.35 (3 - 15) | 10.88 ± 1.73 (8 - 15) | 9.46 ± 2.69 (3 - 14) | 0.035 |
symptom | 48 | 29.58 ± 9.87 (14 - 56) | 28.50 ± 8.29 (14 - 45) | 30.67 ± 11.30 (15 - 56) | 0.453 |
slof_work | 48 | 22.69 ± 4.87 (10 - 30) | 23.12 ± 4.61 (15 - 30) | 22.25 ± 5.19 (10 - 30) | 0.540 |
slof_relationship | 48 | 25.94 ± 5.86 (11 - 35) | 26.25 ± 6.20 (13 - 35) | 25.62 ± 5.62 (11 - 35) | 0.716 |
satisfaction | 48 | 20.77 ± 6.72 (5 - 30) | 19.54 ± 6.45 (5 - 29) | 22.00 ± 6.90 (5 - 30) | 0.209 |
mhc_emotional | 48 | 11.44 ± 3.54 (4 - 18) | 11.12 ± 3.05 (6 - 17) | 11.75 ± 4.00 (4 - 18) | 0.546 |
mhc_social | 48 | 14.83 ± 5.02 (6 - 26) | 15.21 ± 5.12 (7 - 26) | 14.46 ± 5.00 (6 - 23) | 0.610 |
mhc_psychological | 48 | 22.15 ± 6.11 (6 - 36) | 21.67 ± 6.11 (10 - 33) | 22.62 ± 6.21 (6 - 36) | 0.592 |
resilisnce | 48 | 16.83 ± 4.74 (6 - 25) | 16.58 ± 4.74 (6 - 24) | 17.08 ± 4.82 (7 - 25) | 0.719 |
social_provision | 48 | 13.67 ± 3.17 (5 - 20) | 13.58 ± 2.80 (8 - 20) | 13.75 ± 3.57 (5 - 19) | 0.858 |
els_value_living | 48 | 17.04 ± 2.98 (5 - 23) | 16.67 ± 2.30 (12 - 20) | 17.42 ± 3.55 (5 - 23) | 0.389 |
els_life_fulfill | 48 | 13.04 ± 3.29 (4 - 18) | 12.21 ± 3.28 (5 - 17) | 13.88 ± 3.14 (4 - 18) | 0.079 |
els | 48 | 30.08 ± 5.66 (9 - 40) | 28.88 ± 4.79 (20 - 36) | 31.29 ± 6.29 (9 - 40) | 0.141 |
social_connect | 48 | 27.06 ± 9.79 (8 - 48) | 26.96 ± 8.78 (8 - 45) | 27.17 ± 10.90 (8 - 48) | 0.942 |
shs_agency | 48 | 14.04 ± 4.82 (3 - 20) | 13.46 ± 4.55 (3 - 20) | 14.62 ± 5.11 (3 - 20) | 0.408 |
shs_pathway | 48 | 16.50 ± 3.88 (4 - 22) | 15.96 ± 3.72 (8 - 22) | 17.04 ± 4.03 (4 - 22) | 0.338 |
shs | 48 | 30.54 ± 8.10 (7 - 42) | 29.42 ± 7.88 (14 - 41) | 31.67 ± 8.33 (7 - 42) | 0.341 |
esteem | 48 | 12.50 ± 1.27 (10 - 15) | 12.58 ± 1.18 (10 - 14) | 12.42 ± 1.38 (10 - 15) | 0.655 |
mlq_search | 48 | 15.08 ± 3.30 (3 - 21) | 15.00 ± 3.26 (6 - 21) | 15.17 ± 3.41 (3 - 20) | 0.863 |
mlq_presence | 48 | 13.62 ± 3.90 (3 - 21) | 13.92 ± 2.98 (6 - 19) | 13.33 ± 4.69 (3 - 21) | 0.609 |
mlq | 48 | 28.71 ± 6.57 (6 - 41) | 28.92 ± 6.04 (12 - 40) | 28.50 ± 7.17 (6 - 41) | 0.829 |
empower | 48 | 19.88 ± 4.34 (6 - 28) | 19.75 ± 3.95 (11 - 24) | 20.00 ± 4.79 (6 - 28) | 0.844 |
ismi_resistance | 48 | 14.83 ± 2.76 (5 - 20) | 14.92 ± 2.30 (12 - 19) | 14.75 ± 3.21 (5 - 20) | 0.837 |
ismi_discrimation | 48 | 11.17 ± 3.13 (5 - 19) | 11.96 ± 2.84 (5 - 17) | 10.38 ± 3.27 (5 - 19) | 0.080 |
sss_affective | 48 | 9.62 ± 4.10 (3 - 18) | 10.04 ± 3.30 (3 - 15) | 9.21 ± 4.80 (3 - 18) | 0.487 |
sss_behavior | 48 | 9.44 ± 4.24 (3 - 18) | 9.96 ± 4.05 (3 - 18) | 8.92 ± 4.45 (3 - 18) | 0.401 |
sss_cognitive | 48 | 7.98 ± 3.99 (3 - 18) | 7.79 ± 3.74 (3 - 15) | 8.17 ± 4.30 (3 - 18) | 0.749 |
sss | 48 | 27.04 ± 11.38 (9 - 54) | 27.79 ± 9.57 (9 - 44) | 26.29 ± 13.11 (9 - 54) | 0.653 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.25 | 0.251 | 2.76, 3.74 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.167 | 0.354 | -0.528, 0.861 | 0.640 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.793 | 0.473 | -0.135, 1.72 | 0.108 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.542 | 0.725 | -1.96, 0.879 | 0.463 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.3 | 0.549 | 17.3, 19.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.167 | 0.777 | -1.69, 1.36 | 0.831 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.130 | 0.589 | -1.28, 1.03 | 0.830 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.679 | 0.911 | -1.11, 2.46 | 0.472 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 30.3 | 0.931 | 28.4, 32.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.875 | 1.317 | -1.71, 3.46 | 0.510 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.607 | 0.688 | -0.741, 1.96 | 0.396 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.048 | 1.065 | -2.04, 2.14 | 0.965 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.400 | 11.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.083 | 0.566 | -1.19, 1.03 | 0.884 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.429 | 0.519 | -1.45, 0.588 | 0.422 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.487 | 0.801 | -1.08, 2.06 | 0.553 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.6 | 0.603 | 16.4, 18.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.167 | 0.853 | -1.50, 1.84 | 0.846 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.130 | 0.657 | -1.16, 1.42 | 0.846 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.921 | 1.015 | -2.91, 1.07 | 0.382 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.615 | 12.2, 14.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.208 | 0.870 | -1.50, 1.91 | 0.812 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.128 | 0.406 | -0.668, 0.923 | 0.759 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.538 | 0.628 | -0.693, 1.77 | 0.410 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.9 | 0.464 | 9.97, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.42 | 0.656 | -2.70, -0.131 | 0.035 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.07 | 0.823 | -2.68, 0.542 | 0.206 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.53 | 1.263 | -0.947, 4.00 | 0.238 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.076 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 2.050 | 24.5, 32.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.17 | 2.899 | -3.52, 7.85 | 0.459 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.13 | 1.772 | -4.60, 2.35 | 0.537 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.95 | 2.741 | -3.43, 7.32 | 0.492 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 23.1 | 1.002 | 21.2, 25.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.875 | 1.417 | -3.65, 1.90 | 0.540 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.83 | 0.578 | -2.96, -0.697 | 0.009 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.887 | 0.895 | -0.867, 2.64 | 0.344 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 26.2 | 1.215 | 23.9, 28.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.625 | 1.718 | -3.99, 2.74 | 0.718 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.45 | 1.047 | -3.50, 0.603 | 0.193 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.87 | 1.620 | -1.31, 5.04 | 0.272 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.5 | 1.339 | 16.9, 22.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.46 | 1.893 | -1.25, 6.17 | 0.200 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.80 | 1.418 | 0.017, 5.58 | 0.073 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.170 | 2.192 | -4.47, 4.13 | 0.939 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.055 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.1 | 0.719 | 9.72, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.625 | 1.017 | -1.37, 2.62 | 0.542 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.10 | 1.032 | -0.918, 3.13 | 0.303 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.47 | 1.591 | -4.59, 1.65 | 0.370 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 1.096 | 13.1, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.750 | 1.551 | -3.79, 2.29 | 0.631 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.40 | 1.626 | -0.783, 5.59 | 0.156 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.84 | 2.506 | -8.75, 1.07 | 0.143 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.7 | 1.272 | 19.2, 24.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.958 | 1.798 | -2.57, 4.48 | 0.596 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.86 | 1.879 | -1.82, 5.55 | 0.335 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.17 | 2.896 | -8.84, 2.51 | 0.289 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.935 | 14.8, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.500 | 1.322 | -2.09, 3.09 | 0.707 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.17 | 1.418 | -1.61, 3.95 | 0.423 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.414 | 2.185 | -4.70, 3.87 | 0.852 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.6 | 0.644 | 12.3, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.167 | 0.910 | -1.62, 1.95 | 0.855 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.381 | 0.751 | -1.85, 1.09 | 0.621 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.75 | 1.161 | -0.527, 4.02 | 0.156 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.591 | 15.5, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.750 | 0.835 | -0.887, 2.39 | 0.373 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.42 | 0.772 | -0.096, 2.93 | 0.085 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.21 | 1.192 | -3.55, 1.13 | 0.325 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.631 | 11.0, 13.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.67 | 0.893 | -0.083, 3.42 | 0.068 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.48 | 0.748 | 0.012, 2.94 | 0.070 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.14 | 1.155 | -3.40, 1.13 | 0.342 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.068 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 1.099 | 26.7, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.42 | 1.554 | -0.629, 5.46 | 0.126 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.93 | 1.382 | 0.222, 5.64 | 0.051 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.36 | 2.134 | -6.54, 1.82 | 0.286 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.055 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.0 | 1.987 | 23.1, 30.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.208 | 2.810 | -5.30, 5.72 | 0.941 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.63 | 1.696 | -1.70, 4.95 | 0.358 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.54 | 2.623 | -3.61, 6.68 | 0.570 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.5 | 0.969 | 11.6, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.17 | 1.370 | -1.52, 3.85 | 0.399 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.54 | 1.073 | -0.560, 3.64 | 0.178 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.06 | 1.658 | -4.31, 2.19 | 0.534 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.750 | 14.5, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.08 | 1.061 | -0.995, 3.16 | 0.312 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.01 | 0.970 | -0.894, 2.91 | 0.318 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.071 | 1.497 | -3.01, 2.86 | 0.963 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 1.595 | 26.3, 32.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.25 | 2.256 | -2.17, 6.67 | 0.324 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.50 | 1.840 | -1.10, 6.11 | 0.199 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.08 | 2.842 | -6.65, 4.49 | 0.710 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.255 | 12.1, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.167 | 0.360 | -0.873, 0.540 | 0.646 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.947 | 0.481 | 0.004, 1.89 | 0.075 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.970 | 0.737 | -2.41, 0.474 | 0.213 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.071 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.688 | 13.7, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.167 | 0.972 | -1.74, 2.07 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.833 | 1.265 | -1.65, 3.31 | 0.516 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.25 | 1.940 | -6.05, 1.55 | 0.256 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.784 | 12.4, 15.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.583 | 1.108 | -2.76, 1.59 | 0.601 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.15 | 1.183 | -1.17, 3.47 | 0.345 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.39 | 1.823 | -4.96, 2.18 | 0.457 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 1.352 | 26.3, 31.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.417 | 1.912 | -4.16, 3.33 | 0.828 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.03 | 2.265 | -2.41, 6.47 | 0.380 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.68 | 3.482 | -10.5, 3.15 | 0.303 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.8 | 0.866 | 18.1, 21.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.250 | 1.225 | -2.15, 2.65 | 0.839 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.598 | 0.824 | -1.02, 2.21 | 0.483 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.593 | 1.275 | -3.09, 1.91 | 0.651 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.539 | 13.9, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.167 | 0.762 | -1.66, 1.33 | 0.828 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.106 | 0.852 | -1.78, 1.56 | 0.902 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.613 | 1.311 | -1.96, 3.18 | 0.645 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.614 | 10.8, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.58 | 0.868 | -3.28, 0.117 | 0.074 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.846 | 0.787 | -2.39, 0.697 | 0.299 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.306 | 1.215 | -2.08, 2.69 | 0.805 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.067 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.820 | 8.43, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.833 | 1.160 | -3.11, 1.44 | 0.476 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.319 | 0.666 | -1.62, 0.986 | 0.641 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.721 | 1.030 | -2.74, 1.30 | 0.499 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.96 | 0.848 | 8.30, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.04 | 1.199 | -3.39, 1.31 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.26 | 0.944 | -3.11, 0.593 | 0.207 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.724 | 1.459 | -2.14, 3.58 | 0.629 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 7.79 | 0.830 | 6.17, 9.42 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.375 | 1.173 | -1.92, 2.67 | 0.751 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.19 | 0.807 | -0.389, 2.77 | 0.166 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.30 | 1.247 | -4.75, 0.142 | 0.090 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 2.306 | 23.3, 32.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.50 | 3.262 | -7.89, 4.89 | 0.648 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.507 | 1.880 | -4.19, 3.18 | 0.792 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.98 | 2.909 | -7.69, 3.72 | 0.509 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.25 (95% CI [2.76, 3.74], t(54) = 12.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.86], t(54) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.72], t(54) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.88], t(54) = -0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.60, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.33 (95% CI [17.26, 19.41], t(54) = 33.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.36], t(54) = -0.21, p = 0.830; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.03], t(54) = -0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.46], t(54) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.95])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.25 (95% CI [28.43, 32.07], t(54) = 32.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.71, 3.46], t(54) = 0.66, p = 0.506; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.96], t(54) = 0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-2.04, 2.14], t(54) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.33 (95% CI [11.55, 13.12], t(54) = 30.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.03], t(54) = -0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.59], t(54) = -0.83, p = 0.408; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.06], t(54) = 0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.58 (95% CI [16.40, 18.76], t(54) = 29.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.84], t(54) = 0.20, p = 0.845; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.42], t(54) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.49])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.91, 1.07], t(54) = -0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.37 (95% CI [12.17, 14.58], t(54) = 21.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.91], t(54) = 0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.92], t(54) = 0.31, p = 0.753; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.77], t(54) = 0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.88 (95% CI [9.97, 11.78], t(54) = 23.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.70, -0.13], t(54) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.16, -0.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.54], t(54) = -1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.95, 4.00], t(54) = 1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.50 (95% CI [24.48, 32.52], t(54) = 13.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.17, 95% CI [-3.52, 7.85], t(54) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-4.60, 2.35], t(54) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.95, 95% CI [-3.43, 7.32], t(54) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.13 (95% CI [21.16, 25.09], t(54) = 23.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.65, 1.90], t(54) = -0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.83, 95% CI [-2.96, -0.70], t(54) = -3.17, p = 0.002; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.64], t(54) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.25 (95% CI [23.87, 28.63], t(54) = 21.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-3.99, 2.74], t(54) = -0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-3.50, 0.60], t(54) = -1.38, p = 0.166; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.87, 95% CI [-1.31, 5.04], t(54) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.84])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.54 (95% CI [16.92, 22.17], t(54) = 14.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.46, 95% CI [-1.25, 6.17], t(54) = 1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.92])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.80, 95% CI [0.02, 5.58], t(54) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [2.47e-03, 0.83])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-4.47, 4.13], t(54) = -0.08, p = 0.938; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.13 (95% CI [9.72, 12.53], t(54) = 15.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.37, 2.62], t(54) = 0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.75])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.92, 3.13], t(54) = 1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.90])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-4.59, 1.65], t(54) = -0.93, p = 0.355; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.21 (95% CI [13.06, 17.36], t(54) = 13.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-3.79, 2.29], t(54) = -0.48, p = 0.629; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.40, 95% CI [-0.78, 5.59], t(54) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.00])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.84, 95% CI [-8.75, 1.07], t(54) = -1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.67 (95% CI [19.17, 24.16], t(54) = 17.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-2.57, 4.48], t(54) = 0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.86, 95% CI [-1.82, 5.55], t(54) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.88])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.17, 95% CI [-8.84, 2.51], t(54) = -1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.58 (95% CI [14.75, 18.42], t(54) = 17.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-2.09, 3.09], t(54) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.61, 3.95], t(54) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.87])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-4.70, 3.87], t(54) = -0.19, p = 0.850; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.85])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.58 (95% CI [12.32, 14.84], t(54) = 21.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.62, 1.95], t(54) = 0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.09], t(54) = -0.51, p = 0.613; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.75, 95% CI [-0.53, 4.02], t(54) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.67 (95% CI [15.51, 17.82], t(54) = 28.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.39], t(54) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.79])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.42, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.93], t(54) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.98])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-3.55, 1.13], t(54) = -1.01, p = 0.310; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.21 (95% CI [10.97, 13.45], t(54) = 19.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.08, 3.42], t(54) = 1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.48, 95% CI [0.01, 2.94], t(54) = 1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [3.66e-03, 0.91])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-3.40, 1.13], t(54) = -0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.87 (95% CI [26.72, 31.03], t(54) = 26.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.42, 95% CI [-0.63, 5.46], t(54) = 1.56, p = 0.120; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.96])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.93, 95% CI [0.22, 5.64], t(54) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.04, 0.99])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.36, 95% CI [-6.54, 1.82], t(54) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.96 (95% CI [23.06, 30.85], t(54) = 13.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-5.30, 5.72], t(54) = 0.07, p = 0.941; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [-1.70, 4.95], t(54) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-3.61, 6.68], t(54) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.46 (95% CI [11.56, 15.36], t(54) = 13.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.52, 3.85], t(54) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-0.56, 3.64], t(54) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.77])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-4.31, 2.19], t(54) = -0.64, p = 0.522; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.96 (95% CI [14.49, 17.43], t(54) = 21.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.16], t(54) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.85])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.91], t(54) = 1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.78])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-3.01, 2.86], t(54) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.42 (95% CI [26.29, 32.54], t(54) = 18.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.25, 95% CI [-2.17, 6.67], t(54) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.85])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.50, 95% CI [-1.10, 6.11], t(54) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.77])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-6.65, 4.49], t(54) = -0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.36) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.58 (95% CI [12.08, 13.08], t(54) = 49.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.54], t(54) = -0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [4.45e-03, 1.89], t(54) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.75, 95% CI [3.52e-03, 1.49])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.41, 0.47], t(54) = -1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.37) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.00 (95% CI [13.65, 16.35], t(54) = 21.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.74, 2.07], t(54) = 0.17, p = 0.864; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.65, 3.31], t(54) = 0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.98])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.25, 95% CI [-6.05, 1.55], t(54) = -1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.92 (95% CI [12.38, 15.45], t(54) = 17.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-2.76, 1.59], t(54) = -0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-1.17, 3.47], t(54) = 0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.90])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.39, 95% CI [-4.96, 2.18], t(54) = -0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.92 (95% CI [26.27, 31.57], t(54) = 21.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-4.16, 3.33], t(54) = -0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [-2.41, 6.47], t(54) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.96])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.68, 95% CI [-10.50, 3.15], t(54) = -1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.75 (95% CI [18.05, 21.45], t(54) = 22.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.15, 2.65], t(54) = 0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.02, 2.21], t(54) = 0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-3.09, 1.91], t(54) = -0.46, p = 0.642; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.92 (95% CI [13.86, 15.97], t(54) = 27.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.33], t(54) = -0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.78, 1.56], t(54) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.18], t(54) = 0.47, p = 0.640; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.96 (95% CI [10.76, 13.16], t(54) = 19.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.58, 95% CI [-3.28, 0.12], t(54) = -1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.39, 0.70], t(54) = -1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.69], t(54) = 0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.85])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.04 (95% CI [8.43, 11.65], t(54) = 12.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-3.11, 1.44], t(54) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.99], t(54) = -0.48, p = 0.632; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-2.74, 1.30], t(54) = -0.70, p = 0.484; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.96 (95% CI [8.30, 11.62], t(54) = 11.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-3.39, 1.31], t(54) = -0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-3.11, 0.59], t(54) = -1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-2.14, 3.58], t(54) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.86])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.79 (95% CI [6.17, 9.42], t(54) = 9.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.92, 2.67], t(54) = 0.32, p = 0.749; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.77], t(54) = 1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.68])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.30, 95% CI [-4.75, 0.14], t(54) = -1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.79 (95% CI [23.27, 32.31], t(54) = 12.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-7.89, 4.89], t(54) = -0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-4.19, 3.18], t(54) = -0.27, p = 0.788; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.98, 95% CI [-7.69, 3.72], t(54) = -0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 198.649 | 204.932 | -96.324 | 192.649 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 201.466 | 214.032 | -94.733 | 189.466 | 3.183 | 3 | 0.364 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 278.147 | 284.431 | -136.074 | 272.147 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 283.367 | 295.933 | -135.683 | 271.367 | 0.781 | 3 | 0.854 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 333.979 | 340.262 | -163.990 | 327.979 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 337.970 | 350.536 | -162.985 | 325.970 | 2.009 | 3 | 0.571 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 244.618 | 250.901 | -119.309 | 238.618 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 249.829 | 262.395 | -118.915 | 237.829 | 0.788 | 3 | 0.852 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 290.161 | 296.444 | -142.081 | 284.161 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 294.944 | 307.510 | -141.472 | 282.944 | 1.217 | 3 | 0.749 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 281.809 | 288.092 | -137.904 | 275.809 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 285.500 | 298.066 | -136.750 | 273.500 | 2.309 | 3 | 0.511 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 273.740 | 280.023 | -133.870 | 267.740 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 274.240 | 286.806 | -131.120 | 262.240 | 5.500 | 3 | 0.139 |
symptom | null | 3 | 431.724 | 438.007 | -212.862 | 425.724 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 436.394 | 448.960 | -212.197 | 424.394 | 1.330 | 3 | 0.722 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 343.628 | 349.912 | -168.814 | 337.628 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 340.878 | 353.444 | -164.439 | 328.878 | 8.750 | 3 | 0.033 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 369.690 | 375.973 | -181.845 | 363.690 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 373.535 | 386.101 | -180.768 | 361.535 | 2.155 | 3 | 0.541 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 391.826 | 398.109 | -192.913 | 385.826 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 390.016 | 402.582 | -189.008 | 378.016 | 7.810 | 3 | 0.050 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 317.927 | 324.210 | -155.963 | 311.927 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 322.396 | 334.962 | -155.198 | 310.396 | 1.530 | 3 | 0.675 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 371.431 | 377.714 | -182.715 | 365.431 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 373.731 | 386.298 | -180.866 | 361.731 | 3.699 | 3 | 0.296 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 386.958 | 393.241 | -190.479 | 380.958 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 391.441 | 404.007 | -189.720 | 379.441 | 1.517 | 3 | 0.678 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 350.049 | 356.332 | -172.025 | 344.049 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 355.074 | 367.640 | -171.537 | 343.074 | 0.975 | 3 | 0.807 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 301.385 | 307.668 | -147.693 | 295.385 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 304.397 | 316.963 | -146.199 | 292.397 | 2.988 | 3 | 0.394 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 294.672 | 300.955 | -144.336 | 288.672 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 296.665 | 309.231 | -142.333 | 284.665 | 4.007 | 3 | 0.261 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 303.401 | 309.684 | -148.701 | 297.401 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 302.413 | 314.979 | -145.207 | 290.413 | 6.988 | 3 | 0.072 |
els | null | 3 | 370.765 | 377.048 | -182.382 | 364.765 | |||
els | random | 6 | 370.290 | 382.856 | -179.145 | 358.290 | 6.474 | 3 | 0.091 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 429.624 | 435.907 | -211.812 | 423.624 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 432.327 | 444.893 | -210.163 | 420.327 | 3.298 | 3 | 0.348 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 349.147 | 355.430 | -171.573 | 343.147 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 352.246 | 364.812 | -170.123 | 340.246 | 2.901 | 3 | 0.407 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 321.972 | 328.255 | -157.986 | 315.972 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 325.081 | 337.647 | -156.541 | 313.081 | 2.891 | 3 | 0.409 |
shs | null | 3 | 410.309 | 416.592 | -202.155 | 404.309 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 413.031 | 425.597 | -200.516 | 401.031 | 3.278 | 3 | 0.351 |
esteem | null | 3 | 202.612 | 208.895 | -98.306 | 196.612 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 203.481 | 216.047 | -95.740 | 191.481 | 5.131 | 3 | 0.162 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 317.617 | 323.900 | -155.808 | 311.617 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 322.169 | 334.735 | -155.085 | 310.169 | 1.447 | 3 | 0.694 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 329.368 | 335.651 | -161.684 | 323.368 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 333.823 | 346.389 | -160.911 | 321.823 | 1.545 | 3 | 0.672 |
mlq | null | 3 | 396.958 | 403.241 | -195.479 | 390.958 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 401.476 | 414.042 | -194.738 | 389.476 | 1.482 | 3 | 0.686 |
empower | null | 3 | 329.840 | 336.123 | -161.920 | 323.840 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 335.274 | 347.840 | -161.637 | 323.274 | 0.565 | 3 | 0.904 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 284.195 | 290.478 | -139.098 | 278.195 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 289.876 | 302.442 | -138.938 | 277.876 | 0.319 | 3 | 0.956 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 299.644 | 305.927 | -146.822 | 293.644 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 300.829 | 313.395 | -144.414 | 288.829 | 4.815 | 3 | 0.186 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 321.782 | 328.065 | -157.891 | 315.782 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 325.006 | 337.572 | -156.503 | 313.006 | 2.776 | 3 | 0.427 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 333.106 | 339.389 | -163.553 | 327.106 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 336.358 | 348.924 | -162.179 | 324.358 | 2.749 | 3 | 0.432 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 328.229 | 334.512 | -161.114 | 322.229 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 330.594 | 343.160 | -159.297 | 318.594 | 3.635 | 3 | 0.304 |
sss | null | 3 | 444.900 | 451.184 | -219.450 | 438.900 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 449.149 | 461.715 | -218.574 | 437.149 | 1.752 | 3 | 0.626 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 24 | 3.25 ± 1.23 | 24 | 3.42 ± 1.23 | 0.640 | -0.164 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 7 | 4.04 ± 1.25 | -0.779 | 5 | 3.67 ± 1.25 | -0.247 | 0.612 | 0.368 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 24 | 18.33 ± 2.69 | 24 | 18.17 ± 2.69 | 0.831 | 0.146 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 7 | 18.20 ± 1.96 | 0.114 | 5 | 18.72 ± 1.86 | -0.482 | 0.649 | -0.450 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 24 | 30.25 ± 4.56 | 24 | 31.12 ± 4.56 | 0.510 | -0.670 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 7 | 30.86 ± 2.90 | -0.465 | 5 | 31.78 ± 2.64 | -0.502 | 0.570 | -0.706 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 24 | 12.33 ± 1.96 | 24 | 12.25 ± 1.96 | 0.884 | 0.082 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 7 | 11.90 ± 1.58 | 0.420 | 5 | 12.31 ± 1.53 | -0.057 | 0.659 | -0.395 |
ras_goal | 1st | 24 | 17.58 ± 2.95 | 24 | 17.75 ± 2.95 | 0.846 | -0.131 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 7 | 17.71 ± 2.17 | -0.102 | 5 | 16.96 ± 2.06 | 0.622 | 0.545 | 0.593 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 24 | 13.37 ± 3.01 | 24 | 13.58 ± 3.01 | 0.812 | -0.271 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 7 | 13.50 ± 1.86 | -0.166 | 5 | 14.25 ± 1.68 | -0.867 | 0.471 | -0.972 |
ras_domination | 1st | 24 | 10.88 ± 2.27 | 24 | 9.46 ± 2.27 | 0.035 | 0.821 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 7 | 9.80 ± 2.22 | 0.621 | 5 | 9.92 ± 2.22 | -0.265 | 0.932 | -0.065 |
symptom | 1st | 24 | 28.50 ± 10.04 | 24 | 30.67 ± 10.04 | 0.459 | -0.640 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 7 | 27.37 ± 6.72 | 0.333 | 5 | 31.49 ± 6.21 | -0.242 | 0.280 | -1.216 |
slof_work | 1st | 24 | 23.13 ± 4.91 | 24 | 22.25 ± 4.91 | 0.540 | 0.802 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 7 | 21.30 ± 2.95 | 1.677 | 5 | 21.31 ± 2.62 | 0.865 | 0.994 | -0.011 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 24 | 26.25 ± 5.95 | 24 | 25.63 ± 5.95 | 0.718 | 0.313 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 7 | 24.80 ± 3.98 | 0.725 | 5 | 26.04 ± 3.68 | -0.210 | 0.579 | -0.623 |
satisfaction | 1st | 24 | 19.54 ± 6.56 | 24 | 22.00 ± 6.56 | 0.200 | -0.898 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 7 | 22.34 ± 4.76 | -1.021 | 5 | 24.63 ± 4.50 | -0.959 | 0.402 | -0.835 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 24 | 11.13 ± 3.52 | 24 | 11.75 ± 3.52 | 0.542 | -0.304 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 7 | 12.23 ± 3.01 | -0.536 | 5 | 11.38 ± 2.94 | 0.179 | 0.629 | 0.412 |
mhc_social | 1st | 24 | 15.21 ± 5.37 | 24 | 14.46 ± 5.37 | 0.631 | 0.230 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 7 | 17.61 ± 4.68 | -0.737 | 5 | 13.02 ± 4.59 | 0.439 | 0.100 | 1.406 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 24 | 21.67 ± 6.23 | 24 | 22.62 ± 6.23 | 0.596 | -0.254 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 7 | 23.53 ± 5.41 | -0.495 | 5 | 21.32 ± 5.31 | 0.346 | 0.487 | 0.586 |
resilisnce | 1st | 24 | 16.58 ± 4.58 | 24 | 17.08 ± 4.58 | 0.707 | -0.175 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 7 | 17.75 ± 4.05 | -0.410 | 5 | 17.84 ± 3.98 | -0.265 | 0.971 | -0.030 |
social_provision | 1st | 24 | 13.58 ± 3.15 | 24 | 13.75 ± 3.15 | 0.855 | -0.114 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 7 | 13.20 ± 2.40 | 0.260 | 5 | 15.12 ± 2.29 | -0.935 | 0.171 | -1.309 |
els_value_living | 1st | 24 | 16.67 ± 2.89 | 24 | 17.42 ± 2.89 | 0.374 | -0.493 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 7 | 18.08 ± 2.34 | -0.932 | 5 | 17.62 ± 2.26 | -0.137 | 0.735 | 0.302 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 24 | 12.21 ± 3.09 | 24 | 13.88 ± 3.09 | 0.068 | -1.144 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 7 | 13.69 ± 2.37 | -1.014 | 5 | 14.21 ± 2.27 | -0.233 | 0.699 | -0.363 |
els | 1st | 24 | 28.87 ± 5.38 | 24 | 31.29 ± 5.38 | 0.126 | -0.892 | ||
els | 2nd | 7 | 31.81 ± 4.26 | -1.082 | 5 | 31.86 ± 4.11 | -0.211 | 0.981 | -0.021 |
social_connect | 1st | 24 | 26.96 ± 9.73 | 24 | 27.17 ± 9.73 | 0.941 | -0.064 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 7 | 28.58 ± 6.48 | -0.503 | 5 | 30.33 ± 5.99 | -0.977 | 0.633 | -0.539 |
shs_agency | 1st | 24 | 13.46 ± 4.75 | 24 | 14.63 ± 4.75 | 0.399 | -0.561 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 7 | 15.00 ± 3.52 | -0.742 | 5 | 15.11 ± 3.34 | -0.231 | 0.959 | -0.050 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 24 | 15.96 ± 3.67 | 24 | 17.04 ± 3.67 | 0.312 | -0.568 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 7 | 16.96 ± 2.95 | -0.528 | 5 | 17.98 ± 2.85 | -0.490 | 0.555 | -0.531 |
shs | 1st | 24 | 29.42 ± 7.82 | 24 | 31.67 ± 7.82 | 0.324 | -0.629 | ||
shs | 2nd | 7 | 31.92 ± 5.91 | -0.699 | 5 | 33.09 ± 5.64 | -0.397 | 0.731 | -0.326 |
esteem | 1st | 24 | 12.58 ± 1.25 | 24 | 12.42 ± 1.25 | 0.646 | 0.161 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 7 | 13.53 ± 1.27 | -0.916 | 5 | 12.39 ± 1.27 | 0.022 | 0.135 | 1.099 |
mlq_search | 1st | 24 | 15.00 ± 3.37 | 24 | 15.17 ± 3.37 | 0.865 | -0.062 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 7 | 15.83 ± 3.38 | -0.309 | 5 | 13.75 ± 3.38 | 0.527 | 0.299 | 0.774 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 24 | 13.92 ± 3.84 | 24 | 13.33 ± 3.84 | 0.601 | 0.245 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 7 | 15.07 ± 3.38 | -0.484 | 5 | 13.10 ± 3.32 | 0.099 | 0.322 | 0.828 |
mlq | 1st | 24 | 28.92 ± 6.62 | 24 | 28.50 ± 6.62 | 0.828 | 0.089 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 7 | 30.95 ± 6.24 | -0.436 | 5 | 26.86 ± 6.20 | 0.352 | 0.269 | 0.877 |
empower | 1st | 24 | 19.75 ± 4.24 | 24 | 20.00 ± 4.24 | 0.839 | -0.158 | ||
empower | 2nd | 7 | 20.35 ± 2.94 | -0.378 | 5 | 20.01 ± 2.75 | -0.004 | 0.837 | 0.217 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 24 | 14.92 ± 2.64 | 24 | 14.75 ± 2.64 | 0.828 | 0.096 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 7 | 14.81 ± 2.39 | 0.061 | 5 | 15.26 ± 2.36 | -0.293 | 0.750 | -0.258 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 24 | 11.96 ± 3.01 | 24 | 10.38 ± 3.01 | 0.074 | 1.023 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 7 | 11.11 ± 2.40 | 0.547 | 5 | 9.83 ± 2.32 | 0.349 | 0.362 | 0.826 |
sss_affective | 1st | 24 | 10.04 ± 4.02 | 24 | 9.21 ± 4.02 | 0.476 | 0.657 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 7 | 9.72 ± 2.63 | 0.251 | 5 | 8.17 ± 2.42 | 0.820 | 0.296 | 1.225 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 24 | 9.96 ± 4.15 | 24 | 8.92 ± 4.15 | 0.389 | 0.569 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 7 | 8.70 ± 3.09 | 0.687 | 5 | 8.38 ± 2.94 | 0.291 | 0.858 | 0.173 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 24 | 7.79 ± 4.06 | 24 | 8.17 ± 4.06 | 0.751 | -0.242 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 7 | 8.98 ± 2.84 | -0.769 | 5 | 7.06 ± 2.66 | 0.717 | 0.237 | 1.244 |
sss | 1st | 24 | 27.79 ± 11.30 | 24 | 26.29 ± 11.30 | 0.648 | 0.419 | ||
sss | 2nd | 7 | 27.28 ± 7.41 | 0.141 | 5 | 23.80 ± 6.81 | 0.696 | 0.404 | 0.973 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(54.22) = 0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.88)
2st
t(42.39) = -0.51, p = 0.612, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.11)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(47.95) = -0.21, p = 0.831, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.39)
2st
t(35.95) = 0.46, p = 0.649, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.77)
ras_confidence
1st
t(46.85) = 0.66, p = 0.510, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.77 to 3.52)
2st
t(49.19) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-2.32 to 4.16)
ras_willingness
1st
t(49.06) = -0.15, p = 0.884, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.05)
2st
t(31.75) = 0.45, p = 0.659, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.25)
ras_goal
1st
t(48.02) = 0.20, p = 0.846, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.55 to 1.88)
2st
t(35.50) = -0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-3.26 to 1.75)
ras_reliance
1st
t(46.67) = 0.24, p = 0.812, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.54 to 1.96)
2st
t(52.51) = 0.73, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.81)
ras_domination
1st
t(52.96) = -2.16, p = 0.035, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-2.73 to -0.10)
2st
t(36.70) = 0.09, p = 0.932, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.52 to 2.75)
symptom
1st
t(47.20) = 0.75, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-3.67 to 8.00)
2st
t(43.51) = 1.09, p = 0.280, Cohen d = -1.22, 95% CI (-3.48 to 11.70)
slof_work
1st
t(46.51) = -0.62, p = 0.540, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.98)
2st
t(55.04) = 0.01, p = 0.994, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-3.23 to 3.25)
slof_relationship
1st
t(47.19) = -0.36, p = 0.718, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-4.08 to 2.83)
2st
t(43.62) = 0.56, p = 0.579, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-3.25 to 5.74)
satisfaction
1st
t(47.89) = 1.30, p = 0.200, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-1.35 to 6.27)
2st
t(36.34) = 0.85, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-3.19 to 7.76)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(49.95) = 0.61, p = 0.542, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.42 to 2.67)
2st
t(31.07) = -0.49, p = 0.629, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-4.39 to 2.70)
mhc_social
1st
t(50.30) = -0.48, p = 0.631, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.86 to 2.36)
2st
t(31.18) = -1.69, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 1.41, 95% CI (-10.11 to 0.94)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(50.26) = 0.53, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-2.65 to 4.57)
2st
t(31.16) = -0.70, p = 0.487, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-8.60 to 4.18)
resilisnce
1st
t(50.57) = 0.38, p = 0.707, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.15 to 3.15)
2st
t(31.37) = 0.04, p = 0.971, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-4.70 to 4.87)
social_provision
1st
t(48.38) = 0.18, p = 0.855, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.00)
2st
t(33.69) = 1.40, p = 0.171, Cohen d = -1.31, 95% CI (-0.87 to 4.70)
els_value_living
1st
t(49.13) = 0.90, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.43)
2st
t(31.64) = -0.34, p = 0.735, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.20 to 2.28)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(48.46) = 1.87, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -1.14, 95% CI (-0.13 to 3.46)
2st
t(33.37) = 0.39, p = 0.699, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.22 to 3.28)
els
1st
t(48.84) = 1.56, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.71 to 5.54)
2st
t(32.20) = 0.02, p = 0.981, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-4.91 to 5.03)
social_connect
1st
t(47.17) = 0.07, p = 0.941, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-5.44 to 5.86)
2st
t(43.99) = 0.48, p = 0.633, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-5.57 to 9.06)
shs_agency
1st
t(48.10) = 0.85, p = 0.399, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.92)
2st
t(35.05) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-3.96 to 4.17)
shs_pathway
1st
t(49.04) = 1.02, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.05 to 3.21)
2st
t(31.79) = 0.60, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-2.44 to 4.47)
shs
1st
t(48.31) = 1.00, p = 0.324, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-2.29 to 6.79)
2st
t(33.99) = 0.35, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-5.68 to 8.01)
esteem
1st
t(54.20) = -0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.56)
2st
t(42.27) = -1.52, p = 0.135, Cohen d = 1.10, 95% CI (-2.64 to 0.37)
mlq_search
1st
t(53.68) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.78 to 2.12)
2st
t(39.66) = -1.05, p = 0.299, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-6.08 to 1.92)
mlq_presence
1st
t(50.51) = -0.53, p = 0.601, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-2.81 to 1.64)
2st
t(31.32) = -1.01, p = 0.322, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-5.97 to 2.02)
mlq
1st
t(51.95) = -0.22, p = 0.828, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-4.25 to 3.42)
2st
t(33.69) = -1.12, p = 0.269, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-11.49 to 3.31)
empower
1st
t(47.48) = 0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.21 to 2.71)
2st
t(39.94) = -0.21, p = 0.837, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.69 to 3.01)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(51.09) = -0.22, p = 0.828, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.70 to 1.36)
2st
t(32.00) = 0.32, p = 0.750, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.39 to 3.28)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(48.99) = -1.82, p = 0.074, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-3.33 to 0.16)
2st
t(31.90) = -0.93, p = 0.362, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-4.09 to 1.53)
sss_affective
1st
t(47.05) = -0.72, p = 0.476, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-3.17 to 1.50)
2st
t(45.88) = -1.06, p = 0.296, Cohen d = 1.23, 95% CI (-4.51 to 1.40)
sss_behavior
1st
t(48.13) = -0.87, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-3.45 to 1.37)
2st
t(34.87) = -0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.88 to 3.25)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(47.56) = 0.32, p = 0.751, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.73)
2st
t(39.17) = -1.20, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 1.24, 95% CI (-5.17 to 1.32)
sss
1st
t(47.06) = -0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-8.06 to 5.06)
2st
t(45.72) = -0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = 0.97, 95% CI (-11.82 to 4.85)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(24.06) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.45)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(11.75) = 0.78, p = 0.904, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.09)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(10.71) = 0.80, p = 0.882, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.46)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(12.97) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.41)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(11.82) = -1.00, p = 0.671, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.51 to 0.93)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(10.55) = 1.38, p = 0.392, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.73)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(19.86) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.65 to 2.56)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(11.02) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-3.83 to 5.47)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(10.41) = -1.37, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-2.46 to 0.58)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(11.02) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.33 to 3.17)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(11.69) = 1.54, p = 0.298, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-1.09 to 6.34)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(14.11) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.05 to 2.31)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(14.62) = -0.73, p = 0.959, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-5.65 to 2.79)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(14.56) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-6.18 to 3.57)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(15.02) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.92 to 4.43)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(12.19) = 1.51, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.60 to 3.33)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(13.05) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.81 to 2.22)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(12.28) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.62 to 2.29)
els
1st vs 2st
t(12.71) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.04 to 4.18)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(10.99) = 1.56, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-1.29 to 7.61)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(11.90) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.33 to 3.29)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(12.95) = 0.80, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.46)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(12.12) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-3.39 to 6.23)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(23.97) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.20)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(22.03) = -0.91, p = 0.744, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-4.64 to 1.81)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(14.93) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-3.30 to 2.83)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(17.50) = -0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-7.47 to 4.19)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(11.29) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.16 to 2.17)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(15.87) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.71)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(12.88) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.59 to 1.51)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(10.88) = -1.31, p = 0.434, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-2.79 to 0.71)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(11.93) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-3.01 to 1.94)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(11.36) = -1.15, p = 0.546, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-3.23 to 1.00)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(10.89) = -1.11, p = 0.581, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-7.43 to 2.45)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(21.58) = 1.59, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.82)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(11.54) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.44 to 1.18)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(10.63) = 0.88, p = 0.800, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.14)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(12.60) = -0.81, p = 0.868, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.72)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(11.60) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.59)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(10.49) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.03)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(18.26) = -1.24, p = 0.458, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.73)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(10.91) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-5.07 to 2.82)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(10.37) = -3.15, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 1.68, 95% CI (-3.12 to -0.54)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(10.90) = -1.37, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-3.78 to 0.88)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(11.49) = 1.94, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (-0.36 to 5.95)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(13.56) = 1.04, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-1.18 to 3.39)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(13.99) = 1.43, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-1.19 to 6.00)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(13.94) = 0.96, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-2.29 to 6.02)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(14.33) = 0.80, p = 0.874, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.96 to 4.31)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(11.93) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.05 to 1.29)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(12.66) = 1.79, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.13)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(12.00) = 1.94, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-0.18 to 3.14)
els
1st vs 2st
t(12.38) = 2.08, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -1.08, 95% CI (-0.14 to 6.00)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(10.88) = 0.95, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-2.15 to 5.40)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(11.67) = 1.41, p = 0.367, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.84 to 3.93)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(12.58) = 1.01, p = 0.659, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.14 to 3.16)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(11.86) = 1.34, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-1.58 to 6.59)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(21.51) = 1.87, p = 0.149, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.00)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(19.99) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.94 to 3.60)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(14.25) = 0.94, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.46 to 3.77)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(16.36) = 0.86, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-2.95 to 7.02)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(11.14) = 0.72, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.43)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(15.03) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.99 to 1.77)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(12.52) = -1.05, p = 0.627, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.59 to 0.90)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(10.78) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.80 to 1.16)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(11.70) = -1.31, p = 0.431, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-3.36 to 0.84)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(11.20) = 1.46, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.99)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(10.79) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-4.69 to 3.68)
Plot
